Here’s our weekly Tip from the Grant Goddess….. It’s all about taking your research beyond the RFA. Take 5 minutes to improve your grant writing skills.
For more grant writing tips, check out GrantGoddess.com!
Category Archives: grant writing
Five Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Grant Objectives
Here are the most common objective writing mistakes:
- Not establishing a target. Simply saying that your participants will “show growth” is not a target. How much growth, according to what measure?
- Not identifying how growth will be measured. If you say that there will be a 20% growth in parent knowledge of how to help their children at school, you need to cite your measurement tool. I would also recommend that you be much more specific in how you set the target. Are you talking about 20% growth in the number of parents who reach a cutoff score on a particular assessment or are you referring to a gain of 20 percentage points in the average score of parents on the assessment you identify? Those are very different targets and they are measured differently. Do you see what I mean about being specific?
- Not identifying a timeline for achievement of the objective. You have set a target, but you also need to give a timeline. Will it be achieved each year? Each quarter? By the end of the project? The further out your timeline is, the more important it is to also establish short term benchmarks.
- Setting a target that is too rigorous. Many people think that they will be most likely to get funded if they set the their targets really high or if they target 100% achievement. The problem with that is that a) you may get the grant, but you have doomed yourself to failing to meet your objectives before you even start; and 2) grant readers are more sophisticated today than they were 15 years ago. They are on the lookout for objectives that are not possible to achieve.
- Setting a target that is too low. Other folks go the other direction, and they try to set a really low target so they will definitely be able to meet it. This is commonly done by establishing a target that measures a percentage of a number. For example, to say that there will be a 50% gain in the number of parents who show growth on a particular assessment could be a very low bar to meet, even though it sounds high. If only 2 parents showed growth between pre-and post assessment prior to your grant, you could meet that objective by showing a gain of one parent who showed growth (total 2 parents) after the grant is funded. Don’t try to cheat. Think about what results you want to achieve and what services you are willing to implement to help you get there, and set your targets accordingly.
——————————–
You might also be interested in:
Five Tips for Writing Good Grant Objectives
——————————–
Check out the Grant Tips iPhone App for over 100 grant writing tips you can really use!
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com
Five Mistakes to Avoid When Writing Grant Objectives
Here are the most common objective writing mistakes:
- Not establishing a target. Simply saying that your participants will “show growth” is not a target. How much growth, according to what measure?
- Not identifying how growth will be measured. If you say that there will be a 20% growth in parent knowledge of how to help their children at school, you need to cite your measurement tool. I would also recommend that you be much more specific in how you set the target. Are you talking about 20% growth in the number of parents who reach a cutoff score on a particular assessment or are you referring to a gain of 20 percentage points in the average score of parents on the assessment you identify? Those are very different targets and they are measured differently. Do you see what I mean about being specific?
- Not identifying a timeline for achievement of the objective. You have set a target, but you also need to give a timeline. Will it be achieved each year? Each quarter? By the end of the project? The further out your timeline is, the more important it is to also establish short term benchmarks.
- Setting a target that is too rigorous. Many people think that they will be most likely to get funded if they set the their targets really high or if they target 100% achievement. The problem with that is that a) you may get the grant, but you have doomed yourself to failing to meet your objectives before you even start; and 2) grant readers are more sophisticated today than they were 15 years ago. They are on the lookout for objectives that are not possible to achieve.
- Setting a target that is too low. Other folks go the other direction, and they try to set a really low target so they will definitely be able to meet it. This is commonly done by establishing a target that measures a percentage of a number. For example, to say that there will be a 50% gain in the number of parents who show growth on a particular assessment could be a very low bar to meet, even though it sounds high. If only 2 parents showed growth between pre-and post assessment prior to your grant, you could meet that objective by showing a gain of one parent who showed growth (total 2 parents) after the grant is funded. Don’t try to cheat. Think about what results you want to achieve and what services you are willing to implement to help you get there, and set your targets accordingly.
——————————–
You might also be interested in:
Five Tips for Writing Good Grant Objectives
——————————–
Check out the Grant Tips iPhone App for over 100 grant writing tips you can really use!
A Fool and His Grant Are Soon Parted – Follow the Instructions
I am continually surprised by intelligent, educated people who think they know better than the funding source. In a recent grant competition, folks from an organization approached me and asked if I would serve as evaluator for a project they are proposing. They further requested me to write the evaluation section of the grant narrative. I agreed. It is not uncommon for an evaluator to write the evaluation section. In fact, if I’m going to be conducting the evaluation, I really prefer to design the evaluation myself. It’s difficult to be stuck with a non-evaluator’s often flawed evaluation design after a grant is funded.
So, we got started. We did some planning. They wrote most of the narrative. I wrote the evaluation section. When they sent me a draft to review, I noticed that they had organized the narrative accoring to the selection criteria, but not in the order directed by the RFP. I pointed out (politely, of course) that the RFP said specifically, “Address the scoring criteria in your narrative in the following order…..”
I didn’t like the order in the RFP, either. The funder clearly had just rearranged the criteria from the previous year to make sure no one just submitted the same proposal, but the rearrangement made little sense. Normally, the order goes something like this: Needs, Project Design, Management Plan, Evaluation. If there is a Project Quality section, it goes either before or after Project Design. However, in this RFP, the order went like this: Project Quality, Project Design, Needs, Management Plan, Evaluation. It makes more sense to discuss your needs first, and then move on to how you plan to address those needs, but that’s not what was specified in this RFP.
What’s the number piece of advice on grant writing I always give? Follow the directions.
The narrative that was sent to me for review was not compliant with the RFP instructions. When I mentioned it, I was told that they knew some people in that governmental department who told them that it would be ok to write the narrative in any order that made sense to them.
Wow.
There’s another instruction in the Federal Register – the legal authority for federal grant announcements – that is important. Announcements in the Federal Register usually say that if you are given any advice that contradicts the instructions given in the Federal Register, the written instructions in the Federal Register should always be followed.
So, no matter how smart you are, or how smart you think you are, follow the instructions.
————————-
Watch our free webinar, Top 10 Tips for Grant Writing.
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com
A Fool and His Grant Are Soon Parted – Follow the Instructions
I am continually surprised by intelligent, educated people who think they know better than the funding source. In a recent grant competition, folks from an organization approached me and asked if I would serve as evaluator for a project they are proposing. They further requested me to write the evaluation section of the grant narrative. I agreed. It is not uncommon for an evaluator to write the evaluation section. In fact, if I’m going to be conducting the evaluation, I really prefer to design the evaluation myself. It’s difficult to be stuck with a non-evaluator’s often flawed evaluation design after a grant is funded.
So, we got started. We did some planning. They wrote most of the narrative. I wrote the evaluation section. When they sent me a draft to review, I noticed that they had organized the narrative accoring to the selection criteria, but not in the order directed by the RFP. I pointed out (politely, of course) that the RFP said specifically, “Address the scoring criteria in your narrative in the following order…..”
I didn’t like the order in the RFP, either. The funder clearly had just rearranged the criteria from the previous year to make sure no one just submitted the same proposal, but the rearrangement made little sense. Normally, the order goes something like this: Needs, Project Design, Management Plan, Evaluation. If there is a Project Quality section, it goes either before or after Project Design. However, in this RFP, the order went like this: Project Quality, Project Design, Needs, Management Plan, Evaluation. It makes more sense to discuss your needs first, and then move on to how you plan to address those needs, but that’s not what was specified in this RFP.
What’s the number piece of advice on grant writing I always give? Follow the directions.
The narrative that was sent to me for review was not compliant with the RFP instructions. When I mentioned it, I was told that they knew some people in that governmental department who told them that it would be ok to write the narrative in any order that made sense to them.
Wow.
There’s another instruction in the Federal Register – the legal authority for federal grant announcements – that is important. Announcements in the Federal Register usually say that if you are given any advice that contradicts the instructions given in the Federal Register, the written instructions in the Federal Register should always be followed.
So, no matter how smart you are, or how smart you think you are, follow the instructions.
————————-
Grant Writing is NOT……
I have been reading a lot of grants lately, and working with other grant writers. I’ve seen good writing and not-so-good writing. Rather than give you another list of grant writing do’s and don’ts, I thought I share some things that grant writing is not.
Grant writing is not…..a scavenger hunt. The readers should not have to hunt through your narrative to find the key features of your project design. It should be well-organized and clear.
Grant writing is not…..creative writing. If you have been reading this blog or listening to any of our Tips from the Grant Goddess shows on BlogTalkRadio you know that I often talk about the creative side of grant writing; however, that is different than creative writing. Grant writing is based on providing the information the funder wants. Don’t make the mistake of saying whatever you want to say, regardless of what has been asked.
Grant writing is not…..the same for all funding sources. I run into people all the time who say, “Yeah, I’m a grant writer, too.” Upon further conversation, I learn that he has written a few small foundation grants, sometimes successfully. Recently, a potential client chose to go with another writer who had lots of experience with small private grants, but almost no experience with large federal proposals, and absolutely no experience with the particular program in question. As the deadline approached, the client learned the hard way that there are different kinds of grant writing.
Grant writing is not…..all about you. The writer should be invisible so the message can take center stage. This is not the time to impress the reader with your education or your ability to spin a fancy yarn. Remember this…if the reader is thinking about how good your writing is (or isn’t), he’s not focused on your message, and that’s not good.
———————————–
Related posts and articles:
Working with a Grant Writer: You Get What You Pay For
Do I Really Need a Grant Writer?
Is Grant Writing Success Really Just About Luck?
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com
Grant Writing is NOT……
I have been reading a lot of grants lately, and working with other grant writers. I’ve seen good writing and not-so-good writing. Rather than give you another list of grant writing do’s and don’ts, I thought I share some things that grant writing is not.
Grant writing is not…..a scavenger hunt. The readers should not have to hunt through your narrative to find the key features of your project design. It should be well-organized and clear.
Grant writing is not…..creative writing. If you have been reading this blog or listening to any of our Tips from the Grant Goddess shows on BlogTalkRadio you know that I often talk about the creative side of grant writing; however, that is different than creative writing. Grant writing is based on providing the information the funder wants. Don’t make the mistake of saying whatever you want to say, regardless of what has been asked.
Grant writing is not…..the same for all funding sources. I run into people all the time who say, “Yeah, I’m a grant writer, too.” Upon further conversation, I learn that he has written a few small foundation grants, sometimes successfully. Recently, a potential client chose to go with another writer who had lots of experience with small private grants, but almost no experience with large federal proposals, and absolutely no experience with the particular program in question. As the deadline approached, the client learned the hard way that there are different kinds of grant writing.
Grant writing is not…..all about you. The writer should be invisible so the message can take center stage. This is not the time to impress the reader with your education or your ability to spin a fancy yarn. Remember this…if the reader is thinking about how good your writing is (or isn’t), he’s not focused on your message, and that’s not good.
———————————–
Related posts and articles:
Working with a Grant Writer: You Get What You Pay For
Do I Really Need a Grant Writer?
Is Grant Writing Success Really Just About Luck?
Including Data Analysis in Your Grant Evaluation Section
I know, I know. Data analysis is not everyone’s favorite topic, but it’s a topic you can’t ignore if you want to be successful with grant writing. Not only do you need to be able to analyze your data appropriately to accurately and effectively describe your need for the project in the needs section, but you also need to describe how you will analyze data as part of your evaluation plan.
I have read many grant evaluation plans. Most do a decent job of describing what data will be collected and how/when it will be collected. The majority also discuss how the data will be used for program improvement purposes. But when it comes to talking about how the data will be analyzed (one of the scoring criteria in most government grants, and many private ones, too), that’s when most grant writers fall apart.
There isn’t enough time here to discuss all of the detail you need to know regarding data analysis (hmmm….do I sense a series coming on?), but let’s start with three basic concepts in analyzing the data that you should address.
Data Collection – Like I said, most people cover this pretty well in their evaluation plans. You need to include what data you will be collecting, how you will collect it, when you will collect it, and who will collect it. If new instruments (surveys, etc.) are going to be developed, you’ll need to describe that process, too. Think through the whole process from developing or acquiring the instruments through getting the data into your computer for analysis. Yes, I did say, “into your computer for analysis.” The days of tallying surveys by hand on paper are over. Accept it.
Descriptive Statistics – This is a fancy way of saying that you’ll use the data to describe something. Descriptive statistics include frequency counts, percentages, means, etc. You’ll use descriptive statistics to describe the population you served. You’ll use them to describe your basic outcome data (survey results, etc.). Of course, whenever possible, you should disaggregate your descriptive statistics by important subgroups to make sure you painting an accurate picture. Most of the time, descriptive statistics are all you need for a basic program evaluation, but not always…..
Inferential Statistics – O.k., here’s where we separate the men from the boys….or the women from the girls…or the real evaluators from the pretenders. Inferential statistics are used to help you make judgements about the data beyond what can be said by looking at the descriptive data alone. Inferential statistics help you determine the statistical significance of the changes you see (the likelihood that the changes occurred as a result of your treatment, rather than by chance). They help you predict things, too. If you ever studied anything beyond descriptive statistics in school, you entered the world of inferential statistics. It’s a scary place for some, but it’s the only place to go if you really want to show causation (that your program really made a difference), and isn’t that what evaluation is all about?
If you need a refresher course on research methods, the Research Menthods Knowledge Base is a great place to start.
The GrantGoddess.com Program Evaluation Resources page has some links to interesting articles on data collection and analysis, as well as a link to two free webinars we have posted on evaluation basics.
Including Data Analysis in Your Grant Evaluation Section
I know, I know. Data analysis is not everyone’s favorite topic, but it’s a topic you can’t ignore if you want to be successful with grant writing. Not only do you need to be able to analyze your data appropriately to accurately and effectively describe your need for the project in the needs section, but you also need to describe how you will analyze data as part of your evaluation plan.
I have read many grant evaluation plans. Most do a decent job of describing what data will be collected and how/when it will be collected. The majority also discuss how the data will be used for program improvement purposes. But when it comes to talking about how the data will be analyzed (one of the scoring criteria in most government grants, and many private ones, too), that’s when most grant writers fall apart.
There isn’t enough time here to discuss all of the detail you need to know regarding data analysis (hmmm….do I sense a series coming on?), but let’s start with three basic concepts in analyzing the data that you should address.
Data Collection – Like I said, most people cover this pretty well in their evaluation plans. You need to include what data you will be collecting, how you will collect it, when you will collect it, and who will collect it. If new instruments (surveys, etc.) are going to be developed, you’ll need to describe that process, too. Think through the whole process from developing or acquiring the instruments through getting the data into your computer for analysis. Yes, I did say, “into your computer for analysis.” The days of tallying surveys by hand on paper are over. Accept it.
Descriptive Statistics – This is a fancy way of saying that you’ll use the data to describe something. Descriptive statistics include frequency counts, percentages, means, etc. You’ll use descriptive statistics to describe the population you served. You’ll use them to describe your basic outcome data (survey results, etc.). Of course, whenever possible, you should disaggregate your descriptive statistics by important subgroups to make sure you painting an accurate picture. Most of the time, descriptive statistics are all you need for a basic program evaluation, but not always…..
Inferential Statistics – O.k., here’s where we separate the men from the boys….or the women from the girls…or the real evaluators from the pretenders. Inferential statistics are used to help you make judgements about the data beyond what can be said by looking at the descriptive data alone. Inferential statistics help you determine the statistical significance of the changes you see (the likelihood that the changes occurred as a result of your treatment, rather than by chance). They help you predict things, too. If you ever studied anything beyond descriptive statistics in school, you entered the world of inferential statistics. It’s a scary place for some, but it’s the only place to go if you really want to show causation (that your program really made a difference), and isn’t that what evaluation is all about?
If you need a refresher course on research methods, the Research Menthods Knowledge Base is a great place to start.
The GrantGoddess.com Program Evaluation Resources page has some links to interesting articles on data collection and analysis, as well as a link to two free webinars we have posted on evaluation basics.
Published by Creative Resources & Research http://grantgoddess.com
Grant Writing is a Service
Nonprofit agencies pay for professional services all the time. I’ve worked with animal welfare agencies that hire veterinarians and Internet technicians and I’ve worked with disability organizations that hire instructors and therapists. Executive Directors (ED) will budget for those services and of course they only employ professionals to do the work. They would never dream of allowing a volunteer to fill in for a veterinarian if they weren’t a licensed vet.
Sometimes when it comes to paying for a grant writer ED’s cut corners, and often anyone with time and a computer will do. Is this something you do as an ED? Perhaps that’s because you have not been successful at writing grants in the past, so you could feel that securing grants is a matter of throwing proposals against the wall until something sticks.
I can assure you that a professional grant writer is worth the money. A well-crafted narrative can make all the difference in a funding competition. In the current economic times, there are a lot more organizations submitting proposals than ever. In order to secure a share of the money these days, you want your proposal to stand out because it’s outstanding, not because it looks like a amateur wrote it. When I’ve read grants in the past as part of scoring teams, a poorly written grant stands out like a sore thumb.
Grant research and grant writing are very time-consuming activities. I know, I pretty much do them all day, every day. While that’s my job focus, an ED has a lot of other things to do, not the least of which is the care and feeding of their Board and donors. I am amazed that ED’s find any time to write grants at all. I don’t know, but I suspect most of that writing happens in the wee hours of the morning propelled by Starbucks.
I want to suggest to Executive Directors that your time might be better spent on planning fund raising for other legs of the funding stool, events, and donor cultivation. You might be a good grant writer, but those of us who work on grants full time still have an advantage. I’d suggest to you also that hiring a grant writer is not shirking your duty, it is a wise use of time and resources.
A good grant writer can increase your bottom line and relieve you of the task so you can do more of what you’re best at, connecting with people! Grant writing is a professional service and paying for professional services in support of the mission can be a wise investment.
——————————
This post was written by non-profit consultant and expert grant writer, Derek Link.
——————————
Related posts and aticles:
Working with a Grant Writer – You Get What You Pay For
Good Grant Writers are like Wedding Planners
Do I Really Need a Grant Writer?